 |
Taking Every Thought Captive |
 Got Life? Our Ministry Our Beliefs Our Staff Articles What's New? Contact Us Resources Bookstore Search Links
|
Paganism tries to make “Pseudo-Science” its Universal Truth. By Jay Wegter I. Uncovering the agenda of pseudo-science. A. Pseudo-science presupposes that the
material world is the sum total of reality. 1.
Another word for pseudo-science is naturalism. “Pseudo” is an apt title because naturalism does
not base its conclusions upon the scientific method. Materialism or naturalism cannot be verified by empirical
science. Naturalism is a philosophical belief
about the nature of reality. 2.
Naturalism operates upon the premise that God (if He exists), cannot be known, or He is
irrelevant or absent. Any mention of God is seen as an “addition” to
science that clouds objectivity. (By contrast, the founders of
modern science dealt with God “in relation” to science, not in
addition to science.)[1]
3.
Along with acting as if God is irrelevant, naturalism assumes an intellectual elitism or
“disciplinism.” This intellectual
bigotry falsely asserts that “science”
operates independent other disciplines. (Its literature is replete with
anti-theistic language. “The universe was not designed,
the universe has no purpose, the universe was formed by
mindless, purposeless processes.”[2] B. For the naturalist (materialist,
pseudo-scientist), the universe is analogous to a box: 1.
Everything that
exists is inside the box. The
natural order is caused by (or explicable by) things that exist in the box. 2.
Nothing,
including God, is outside the box.
THEREFORE, nothing outside the box (the box we call the universe or
natural order) can have any causal effect on the box. The natural order is a closed system. Determinism is therefore true.[3] 3.
The “box” view
of the universe is a philosophy concerning the nature of reality. The propositions of the
materialist-naturalist are as follows: a.) Only nature exists. b.) Nature has always existed (it is self-existent). c.) Nature is characterized by total uniformity. Regularity
(uniformity) precludes the
possibility of a supernatural event. d.) Nature is a deterministic system, “free will” is not compatible with naturalism. e.) Nature is a materialistic system.
Everything real is explicable as a material entity. f.) Nature is a self-explanatory system. All that happens may be explained in terms of other
elements of natural order. (It is not necessary to seek an
explanation beyond the natural order.) (When contrasting theism to naturalism’s box analogy, we assert that
God exists outside the box. God created
box. God acts causally within the box.)[4] C. The driving force
behind naturalism (pseudo-science) is an agenda that demands
materialistic conclusions from its “research.” 1. Evidence that the
conclusions of naturalism are “rigged” come
from the
pseudo-scientists themselves! 2. After reviewing
Carl Sagan’s book, Demon Haunted World,
Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin declared, “It’s not that the
methods and findings of science compel us to accept a
materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world, on the
contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material
sources to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
concepts no matter how marvelous that produce materialistic
explanations. Materialism is
absolute. We cannot allow a
divine foot in the door.”[5] D. The goal of
materialism is clear. It is nothing
short of a complete interpretation of
the universe. 1. Pseudo-science
regards the whole phenomenal world to be its territory. That includes mental, physical, and human
behavior. The scientific method is
regarded as the SOLE gateway to the whole region of knowledge.[6] 2. Philosophers Comte
and Pearson assume that facts and classifications of facts (categories) can be
empirically discovered. Materialistic
“science” offers itself as an absolute authority in matters of knowledge. Naturalism suggests that we have no right to
believe anything (including morals) unless they are principles discovered
“through a microscope.”[7]
3. Within the
philosophy of modern science is the supreme goal of uniting all knowledge
within a single all embracing system.
Pseudo-science boasts that it possesses a single all-sufficient
principle of interpretation. By that
principle, it purports to provide the meaning of all reality while denying the
living God of Scripture (this evinces an apostasy that rejects God’s role in
providing the principle of interpretation by His plan.)[8]
4. Pseudo-science is
a philosophy that is not committed to science, but to evolution as its universal. Michael Shermer, leading spokesman for
naturalism, admits to its religious structure:
“Scientism is a scientific world view that encompasses natural
explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal
speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a
philosophy of life appropriate for an age of Science. . . cosmology and
evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally
been the province of religion and theology. We follow the dictates of our
shamans who command our veneration . . . with scientism as the foundational
stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time.” [9] II. The
presuppositions of naturalism drive its methods and conclusions. A. Though it claims objectivity,
naturalism is a slave to anti-God presuppositions. 1. Man cannot be the
source of unity in human experience.
God alone has unity of knowledge.
Only God can give unity to knowledge and to human experience.[10] 2. When mankind
apostatized from God in the Fall, it formed a cleavage between man’s experience
and truth and reality. This division
between experience and truth is evident in naturalism. (In the present state of
being “cut loose” from unity, openly anti-theistic men must presuppose a
theistic view of reality in order to conduct experiments and make logical
inferences.)[11] 3. With the entrance
of sin, man cut his study of himself loose from God. He also cut his study of nature loose from himself (man as the
image of God). For this reason, all the
study of nature since the fall has been false. As far as an ultimate point of
view is concerned, the unbeliever has been in error in his interpretation of
the physical world, for it cannot be known apart from God.[12] 4. The premises of
naturalism (“nature is all there is and all there will ever be”) cannot be
tested empirically. The ultimacy of
matter (materialism) is a philosophy and a world view. Carl Sagan (the self-appointed televangelist
of naturalism) often alluded to the fact that naturalism was a world view. He remarks, “Our ancestors worshipped the
sun and they were far from foolish.” The
Christian apologist must challenge the assumption that science by definition
means naturalistic philosophy.[13] B. Modern science claims
“total objectivity,” but it defines that
“objectivity”
according to its presupposition of materialism. 1. Modern science insists that it works with
“facts” (uninterpreted bits of
irrationality scattered by chance). Strict materialism demands that these
“facts” are irrational and undetermined by
anything outside of
the universe (thus no divine providence).[14]
2. In order for modern science to wear its
mantle of “unrestricted research,” it must cling to a view of the universe that
regards contingency as a
universal (the ultimacy of chance).
There must be no determining
character to determine any determinate trait.[15]
3. It is the essence of modern to assume that
facts are non- revelational of
God. The unbelieving scientist is
breaking God’s covenant when he
says that he is just objectively following where the facts lead him
(“I’m just using the scientific method”).
An example helps
illustrate apostasy of the scientist: Suppose a
researcher decided to dig up a large section of ground on the
White House lawn and then not only acts greatly surprised when
The guard taps him on the shoulder asking for his permit, but also
insists on his right to so what he is doing without any permit at
all. (This is God’s universe, all
facts are God’s facts. Man is under covenant
obligation to God to interpret the phenomenal world as such.)[16] C. The laboratory is not
a philosophy-free zone. 1. The procedures
associated with empiricism are inseparable from philosophy-laden world views
and techniques. 2. Empirical methods
rely upon philosophical and theological underpinnings. It is a misnomer to for the scientist to
assert that he performing “theory-independent” observation. 3. Analysis and conclusions
are only possible if one operates upon premises. Without the underpinnings of philosophy and theology,
empiricality and objectivity fall down on both sides.[17] 4. In order to hold
up
objectivity and empiricality, scientists must provide a philosophical
“container” for their facts. It could
be illustrated by the way that we form a bowl in our mashed potatoes to hold
the gravy. For the scientist, the bowl
that holds his facts consists of the philosophical, metaphysical, theological
underpinnings.[18] 5. The most basic
presuppositions necessary in order to “do science” are as follows. The scientist has to presuppose the reality
of the universe, the uniformity of nature, the reality and rationality of his
mind, the compatibility between the physical universe and abstract thought
(otherwise there could be no true meaning – he could not make his knowledge
coherent to other minds).[19] These presuppositions drawn from theism are
necessary for rationality. But the
modern scientist adds two “inviolate” hypotheses of his own that are
anti-theistic: a.) Facts are not created. b.)
There is no determination outside the universe. D. The driving force
behind pseudo-science is materialism.
The presupposition
of materialism totally conditions the method and conclusions of
materialism. Presupposition, method and conclusion are
inseparable. 1. “Scientism” repudiates anything that cannot
be reduced to the
physical/material and studied by the scientific method. Chemical
evolutionist Richard Dickerson comments, “Science, fundamentally,
is a game. It is a game with one
overriding and fundamental
rule. . . Let us see how far. . . we can explain the behavior of the
physical and material universe in terms of purely physical
and material causes, without invoking the
supernatural.”[20]
2. As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin
admitted, the a priori adherence to
material causes creates a method of investigation and set of
concepts that produces material explanations. a.) Having
presupposed that the world was governed solely by uniformly operating laws, Darwin
philosophically “rigged” his
argument for evolution. If one accepts
philosophical naturalism,
then mechanistic determinism (evolution) “must” be true
regardless of the facts.[21] b.) Operating
upon the presupposition of naturalism, Darwin had already
“stacked the deck” in favor of a naturalistic account of
life, before he uncovered any convincing facts.
As British
biologist Richard Dawkins put it, Darwin “made it possible
to be a an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”[22] (The
evolutionary naturalism of pseudo-science is the pagan’s “universal” by which he interprets all
facts.) E. Unbelieving
scientists speculate, then dictate
their concept of the nature of
reality. (They posit a mindless
first cause.) 1. The unbelieving scientist sets out without
God
in search of the highest
philosophical concept in terms of which he can
interpret
reality.[23] 2.
Francis H. C. Crick who discovered the DNA molecule has
said, “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is,
in fact, to explain all biology in terms of physics and
chemistry.” Crick made this
remark in the context of biology’s
insurmountable problem; namely how does one explain how
worlds of information got into DNA molecules? Recognizing
the immensity of the problem, Crick then postulated that DNA
codes in bacteria were transmitted to our planet in a missile
from some other part of space.[24] III. The
limitations of science severely restrict its ability to interpret reality. A. Modern science touts its fidelity to
objectivity, but fails to consider the severe limits
on science. (The aims,
methodologies, and presuppositions of
science cannot be validated by science.
The effort to validate
science is a philosophical issue. One
cannot turn to science to
justify science.)[25] B. There are “bare
minimum” assumptions that science must
make in order for its
work to be viewed along rational realist lines. These assumptions
include: 1. The human senses are reliable and capable of
giving accurate information about
a “mind-independent” physical world (and not merely
information about successive sense impressions).[26] 2. Science must assume some uniformity of
nature in order to justify
induction. (Uniformity is critical when
researchers assume that they
can legitimately infer from past cases to unexamined
future cases. But the justification of
induction is a philosophical
issue.)[27]
3. Science assumes both uniformity and the
existence of universals in
order to justify inductive inferences from the
examined members
of a class. (These assumptions are necessary in
order to extend their findings to all the members of a class, past
and future. But these assumptions
themselves cannot be
justified inductively.)[28] 3.
Science assumes that the laws of logic are true. 4.
Science assumes that numbers exist (i.e., is the “two-ness” of an
oxygen molecule just as much a constituent as its other chemical properties?). 5.
Science assumes that language has meaning (i.e., scientific theories
are examples of language and are therefore involved in issues of semantics). 6.
Science assumes that truth exists and that it involves some sort of
correspondence between theories and the world. 7.
Science assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values in
its practices. (Truth-telling and
honest reporting in experiments are regarded as moral virtues.)[29] (These assumptions are necessary to ground science
as a rational discipline. But these assumptions are philosophical in nature or “brute givens" which cannot
themselves be verified by science.)[30] C. The limitations of
science point to the fact that only Christianity is the source of
a rational world view. The
limitations of science include the
following: 1. Science
deals only with the physical universe.
(Knowledge related to
universals is not the domain of science. Examples include: morals,
the laws of logic, the preconditions of knowledge, the
immaterial world and world view. See Colossians 1:16,
17 and Psalm 145:3). 2. Science
cannot prove a universal negative. (It
is absurd when modern
science attempts to make a blanket statement of denial about the
anti-supernatural nature of reality. An
example of a
universal negative would be: “There is no such thing as hell,
as an angel, as a devil, as an eternal human soul, as a
person Creator.) 3. Science is unable to make objective moral
judgments.
(Man cannot be the source of absolute ethics. Proponents of
social Darwinism have shown a preference for the wholesale
rejection of moral absolutes that flow from the immutability
and holiness of God.) 4. Science cannot produce final answers to
ultimate questions. Science cannot supply the absolute
universals by which facts are to
be interpreted. God alone reveals
ultimate
absolute truth by which facts are given meaning. (99% plus of
all of the phenomena in the universe are and have been beyond human
observation. It is a hopeless task for
man to
autonomously attempt to gain the unity of all knowledge.) 5. Scientific work is fallible and prone to
error. The vast
majority of scientific theories have changed in the last one
hundred years. Most have been
altered, replaced, or discarded. 6. Science is bound by certain God-ordained
restrictions.
The mind of man is ontologically different from the mind of
God. Man’s ability to interpret the universe correctly is totally
dependent upon God’s revelation.
(e.g., Does the Grand
Canyon contain the story of the evolution of life on earth or the
record of a catastrophic deluge?)
7. All scientists (people) are prejudiced by
their commitment to
foundational assumptions about the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge. (The natural man operates upon prior
assumptions and presuppositions. See
Romans 1:18-32 and
Jeremiah 17:9.) IV. Modern science
is a woefully inadequate reference point.
It cannot explain the nature of ultimate
reality. A. To stress the limits of science is not
“anti-science,” -- the Emphasis upon
limits is simply to show that science is by definition limited
in its valid sphere of reference.[31] B. Great thinkers have
warned over the centuries that a departure from God denudes
man of meaning and results in the death of certainty. No matter how much learning and research is interspersed, the
denial of God and the death of meaning cannot be separated.[32] 1. When man asserts a materialistic view of
reality, he can give no concrete reason
why humans have more value than the aquatic life in a pond.[33]
2. By linking together undirected, purposeless
variation and blind impersonal
processes, Darwin made the spiritual explanation of life superfluous.[34]
C. The Creator-creature
distinction is the starting point for all knowledge.[35] 1. A transcendent God requires a transcendent
method. (When man pursues
absolute universal knowledge, he is totally dependent upon the mind of God.) 2. God is transcendent. He is not a part of the universe. Therefore it is
hypocritical for unbelievers to suggest that if He existed, He could
be found directly by empirical methods of
investigation. (Even within the
universe, scientists assert the existence of many
things that are not directly observable but are only “known”
by their effects. Examples are: black
holes,
the laws of friction, magnetic
fields, etc.)[36] 3. One cannot prove the existence of God in the
same way that one proves the car is
in the garage. The transcendent God of
the universe must be
presupposed. For no method or equipment
can be used to “go
out front of God” in order to find Him.
He gives all the
light to all created facts. God cannot
be “found” by evaluating facts
from a supposedly neutral vantage point.
To attempt to do so
would be like standing at the base of Mt. Everest and trying
to illuminate the summit with a penlight
flashlight. The equipment is totally inadequate.[37] D. The laws of logic, an
ordered universe, and vast information all presuppose an
all-powerful God. 1. Theism alone gives coherence to human
experience; theism alone unites
truth, experience and reality. 2. Information is not inherent in
matter. (When musing upon the origin of life by
chance processes, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle likened
that probability to a row of blind individuals 10 to the 50th
power in length (10 followed by 50 zeroes), all finding the
solution to the Rubik’s cube at the same instant.)[38] 3. Scientists are faced with countless
mysteries in the physical world that they
cannot explain. (Scientists are baffled
by a host of behaviors in the animal world. They are unable to explain the source of
engineering skills in spiders and the location of navigational
organs in migrating birds.)[39]
4. While the natural man remains an unbeliever,
he cannot rise above his vain
approach to reasoning. Without
presupposing the God of
Scripture, the unbeliever will continue his attempt to make facts
intelligible by relating them solely to other facts. The task of the
apologist is to call upon the unbeliever to confess his
intellectual ruin.[40]
Endnotes: [1] Michael Bauman Ed. Et al, Michael Bauman, “Between Jerusalem and the Laboratory: A Theologian looks at Science” Evangelical Apologetics, (Camp Hill: Christian Publishing Inc., 1996), p. 199. [2] Ibid., p. 200-201. [3] Ronald B. Nash, World Views in Conflict, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1992), pp. 117-118. [4] Ibid., pp. 118-121. [5] John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2000), p. 427. [6] Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1952), 201-202. [7] Ibid., 202. [8] Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1976), p. 87. [9] Henry M.
Morris, “What are they afraid of?” in Back to Genesis, p. b, c, vol. 31, no. 12
Acts and Facts (December 2002). [10] Brian Schwertley, Secular Humanism, ed. by Stephen Pribble, (http://www.reformed.com/pub/secular.htm), pp. 4-7. [11] Ibid., p. 7. [12] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), p. 296. [13] Charles Colson, How Now Shall we Live? (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), pp. 52-55. [14] Robert Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge, p. 88. [15] Ibid. [16] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, pp. 680-681. [17] Michael Bauman, |
